How Millennials are driving the shift away from cars

Improved public transport means cars aren't the convenience they once were. Will any amount of smartphone integration or energy innovation succeed in bringing Millennials back into the fold of car ownership? Mike Clay writes.

For decades the car has been seen as a status symbol, a sign of adulthood and a marker of freedom. But no generation took to the car quite like the Baby Boomers.

Growing up on a diet of Mad Max, the Dukes of Hazzard, and Starsky and Hutch, a generation of car owners grew to revere the icons of motoring: Mustang, Valiant, Falcon and Porsche.

When a boy became a man, he bought a car. When a man became successful, he bought a bigger one. When kids came along, the two-seater was traded in for the family sports wagon. At every stage, the car represented freedom and convenience.

But for the first time in the history of motoring, that's starting to change. A growing number of Australians now see the car more as a burden than a liberation, and it's the younger generation that is leading the charge.

In 1920s Australia, there was one car for every 55 people. Today, it's more than one for every two people.

"Australians are very, very passionate about their vehicles," says Lenore Fletcher from BMW Australia. Carmakers are hoping that passion continues, long into the future. "It's a mature market, it's also a very stable market," says Ms Fletcher. "We are selling, across Australia, across all brands, around 1.1 million vehicles per year."

But those stable sales are being outpaced by Australia's population growth. More people should mean more cars. But for the first time, it doesn't.

The release of October figures for new car sales by the Australian Bureau of Statistics should be a warning sign for carmakers. Sales of new passenger vehicles have dropped sharply since the Global Financial Crisis and have not recovered since. They are now at their lowest, per head of population, than at any time in the last 20 years.

Over 12 million passenger vehicles sped along our roads in 2013, and that number has risen every year. But though we now own more cars than ever before, we are actually driving them less. The average number of kilometres travelled has declined 10 per cent in the past decade, and fewer people are using their cars to get to full-time work or study. Experts are warning that this could herald the beginning of 'Peak Car', where the market reaches saturation point and demand declines.

The explosion in car numbers throughout the last century has been mainly driven by one generation: the Baby Boomers. The post-war period saw car numbers double every 10 years until the 1970s, when there was one car for every four people.

Increasing congestion on city roads, along with improved public transport, has made going without a car easier.

"To them the car was a status symbol, it was something to run out and get and talk to your friends about," says Monash University's Dr Alexa Delbosc, who is researching our changing attitudes to car ownership. For boomers, the car was both a necessity and a luxury, a symbol of adulthood and identity.

"For my parent's generation," says 27-year-old media professional Marcus Costello, "you turn 18 and as a kind of right of passage, your father gave you a car. You were becoming a man."

Increasing congestion on city roads, along with improved public transport, has made going without a car easier. New technology has also seen alternatives to ownership spring up.

"We started the first car share company with only three cars and 12 people, 11 years ago. And as of last month, there's over 50,000 people sharing 1,500 cars," says Bruce Jeffreys, the founder of GoGet Car-sharing, which operates in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Adelaide.

Car-sharing represents a shift in the way we think about our cars. Instead of being an asset to own, they're a utility to call on. It's the Spotify approach to cars: a pay-by-the-hour subscription model.

"So instead of owning a car, you've got this tap of vehicles that you can use, and when you don't need one, you haven't got a car to worry about," says Mr Jeffreys.

If the biggest driver behind car sales was the Baby Boomers, then the decline can be placed squarely at the feet of another generation: the Millennials. Young people just aren't buying and driving cars at nearly the rate that their parents did.

"For the first time in recent history, young people are becoming less likely to go out and get a driver's licence, or get a car," says Dr Alexa Delbosc.

In Victoria, the number of under 25s without a driver's licence has risen from 23 per cent to 35 per cent in just 10 years. In New South Wales, the proportion of young licensed drivers has fallen by around 1 per cent a year. The move to graduated licensing schemes, which make it harder for young drivers to get a full licence, may be a factor. But it's not the whole story, because the trend was in place before the licensing regimes were ratcheted up.

"It's happening in Australia, but it's also happening in America, Canada, the UK and in a lot of Europe," says Dr Delbosc. She believes a number of demographic and lifestyle shifts may be behind driving the change. "Young people are becoming less likely to go straight into full-time work, marriage, mortgage, children. Instead they're going to uni, maybe working part-time, travelling. And all of that means they have less need for a car, but also less money to pay for one."

It's a trend that Marcus Costello knows well: "So few of my friends actually own cars. A few of us have GoGet subscriptions and the rest of us are always relying on those people."

Like many in his generation, Marcus has a lifestyle and priorities that favour flexibility, travel, study and city-living. So when it came time to choosing a mode of transport, Marcus chose cycling instead of driving.

"Practically-speaking, owning a car doesn't make sense if you live in the inner-city," says Marcus. "There's the cost of registration, there's the cost of fuel, the cost of parking. These costs add up and I don't have to consider any of those."

With youth unemployment running at two times the national level, some say it's no wonder that young people aren't rushing out to buy a car. But Bruce Jeffreys thinks the decline is structural and not cyclical. He credits new technologies, like smartphones, for the shift.

"They are a real status symbol, and in some ways have replaced the car as a status symbol, for young people," says Mr Jeffreys. "I think the move away from car ownership is catching a lot of people by surprise, in particular, government."

Car makers say that if they can build the right product and sell it in the right way, then young buyers will come flocking back.

It's also shocked the big car markers, who have struggled to attract young buyers.

"In America, in particular, carmakers are starting to panic about this change," says Dr Delbosc. "They're wondering why the next generation coming along isn't running out and buying their cars."

Car makers say that if they can build the right product and sell it in the right way, then young buyers will come flocking back.

"BMW is very conscious of the need to attract new customers to the brand, and we're going about that in a variety of ways," says Lenore Fletcher of BMW. Her company is trialling corporate car-sharing for businesses looking to avoid hefty fleet costs. They're also releasing a range of technology-rich models to entice young buyers, like the all-electric BMW i30.

"This vehicle is choc-full of technology and will really appeal to a younger market who are very in touch with connectivity," says Ms Fletcher.

But will any amount of smartphone integration, brightly coloured cars or snappy marketing jingles succeed in bringing Millennials back into the fold? If this trend continues, a substantial proportion of the Australian population will grow up never finding the need to own a car.

As a young driver living in the inner-city, I have often considered selling my car, booking the depreciation and getting around carless. But with parenthood on the cards, I can't quite see myself giving up the convenience of car ownership.

But even if we Millennials just delay our car purchases, instead of avoiding them altogether, the effects will be felt throughout the economy.

It presents a major problem for car makers, but a big opportunity for policymakers. Road transport in the OECD accounts for around 23 per cent of carbon emissions. As momentum builds to a binding global climate agreement in Paris next year, governments should be looking to encourage measures that will see emissions fall.

In Brisbane this weekend, the G20 agreed to a global growth target and a major ramp-up in infrastructure spending between now and 2030. Tony Abbott has pledged to make infrastructure a priority of his Prime Ministership, promising to "build the roads of the 21st century." While that aim is laudable, the question is: will today's drivers still need them, tomorrow?

HPH:

Graham Bell:

21 Nov 2014 7:48:07am

HPH: you must be living in the United States where the principle of "Maintenance Costs Profits" is written into their Constitution and where privately-operated public transport must never never never be allowed to rise above Third World standard.

Rae:

I use public transport happily in the US but cannot get home from my local train station as the last bus leaves about 6pm.

Private 'public' transport around here is appalling.

When did you last use public transport in America or have you been sold the usually negative false flags.

Now if our department stores and supermarkets could work out how to get the queues moving as reliably as in The States and the road workers could figure out how to use lights to build in a timely fashion then coming home would be so much less frustrating.

Peter:

21 Nov 2014 11:11:17am

When you are young it is easy to imagine living without a car or home ownership of anything, really. Wait until you start to pile on the responsibilities, mate. Then you'll understand. Ownership is the key to wealth. Remember that, my friend, and you'll do ok.

virgil:

20 Nov 2014 3:50:57pm

Stepping back a bit, are Millennials rejecting - or at least tempering - consumerism compared with Baby Boomers. While it has already started to affect the traditional big ticket items like houses and cars, maybe this change will flow through into more consumer products. Millennials are more socially & media connected through technology & so more willing to use peer-to-peer services such as sharing & swapping. If it continued, what would this trend do to the G20's growth targets?! The big growth/population Ponzi scheme would start to look shaky.

chalkie:

21 Nov 2014 5:54:31am

It isn't petrol prices: these are cheaper in real terms than pretty much anytime in the past (esp in terms of income to cost).

The real impacts on affordability are:

1. $10 - 25 000 per year uni fees2. low wage and casualised labour that barely covers .. .3. insane housing costs: $200 a week gets you a room, a bad one, a little bit out of the city. Then add all the other living expenses.

Technically, a student on Austudy has their money delayed if they have savings of $5500 or more - if you try to get anything more than a death trap, you lose a week's income for every $500 over that amount. Try to work harder to offset this, and if your income is $500 a fn you lose $46 + 60c per dollar. This is the highest 'tax' rate in the country: on people earning $20k.

The system discourages saving: when so many from one generation do something, you have to think that they are making a rational decision in the face of irrational circumstances.

ie. It's might be the fault of we older, lousy custodians of our society and economy, and not them.

Geoffrey Pearce:

21 Nov 2014 8:28:33am

You are so right, many of our generation are so greedy and consumer bound, and have also legislated, or put in power those who can legislate that has caused the financial burdens on the young today. My heart really goes out for the youngsters trying to struggle through this mess called "life" that we have saddled them with

Mark:

21 Nov 2014 9:55:49am

The costs you mention are rarely actually faced by uni students these days. With the exception of regional students who move to a city for study and a very small number of local students, most uni students continue to live with mum and dad throughout their uni studies. All except a very small number of students also study through HECS, so they don't have to pay any fees while they are actually studying. In fact, the largest cost I had to pay up from each year of study (in the early 2000's) was the compulsory student union fee.

Most uni students, except for those who must or choose to leave home in their late teens, live very comfortably through their uni days. They collect a pay slipfrom a part-time job (from which, if they work on the weekend, and many students do, pays over $30 per hour) while facing little/no genuine cost of living pressures because these are covered by mum and dad. The fact that they can't afford cars comes down to the high cost of running a car and their own consumption choices (ie. demand for electronics, dining out, entertainment and travel).

Tamaresque:

21 Nov 2014 11:31:06am

Where do you live? Anyone who doesn't have parents or other family living close to a uni, also have to live away from home. In Tasmania there are only 3 campuses so a lot of students have to live away from home. We also attract a lot of overseas and, believe it or not, interstate students. Admittedly their housing costs here are not as extreme as those on the mainland, but trying to live on the pittance that is a student allowance is extremely difficult, especially, as I noted earlier, because there is little to no public transport here.Swings and roundabouts.

frangipani:

20 Nov 2014 4:37:34pm

On the basis of no data whatsoever, I'd say no, the millennials are just directing their consumerism elsewhere - to the latest tablet or iPhone, holidays in Bali, restaurants and designer shoes. I don't notice any more self restraint and self denial among millennials than among boomers.

PW:

20 Nov 2014 7:08:53pm

My seat of the pants feeling is that there have never been more cars on the road than there are right now, and emerging young adults (18 year olds) are embracing the car with far greater zeal than boomers did, particularly the girls.

I'm interested to see this item on 7.30 (too late for the Drum, maybe I can catch the repeat later).

Chris:

20 Nov 2014 3:56:25pm

A typically ridiculous analysis. Step outside the latte line of Sydney and Melbourne you'll discover public transport is only convenient getting to and from major cities' CBDs. It is no replacement for vehicles for average Australians.

Reader:

20 Nov 2014 4:19:23pm

Of course that's the case - though smaller cities like Wollongong also have good public transport. The point is that now people are thinking about whether they need a car (and for most people outside major cities, the answer is still yes) rather than automatically buying one because it's "the done thing", as the Americans would put it.

Andrew thomas:

20 Nov 2014 4:25:31pm

Hi Chris,

Agreed. Public transport simply becomes less cost effective as the number of kilometres increase per capita (an unfortunate consequence of the Anglo-American market economic system). But that doesn't mean that what is happening in big cities is a bad thing. Quite the opposite actually as you'll find that due to issues such as traffic congestion and the sheer weight of population density, cities are responsible for far more fossil fuel consumption, not to mention the number of cars bought, sold and, eventually, disposed of, all of which uses energy and sucks up resources that might be used elsewhere.

So I really think you should be glad to hear that cars are less popular than they used to be in the cities, particularly considering the recent exodus of the car industry from Australia (i.e. who cares if they go broke).

I also note that you use a stereotype in your post, i.e., "...latte line...". This is a bit unfortunate as people in the city are just people and their choice of coffee is not relevant to the conversation. Further, whether you're a city dweller or live in a more rural area does not make you "good" or "bad". It is a mute issue and, well, a bit boring.

hairy nosed wombat:

20 Nov 2014 5:37:41pm

Public transport might suck in the country, but bicycle commuting is very well suited to our country towns - I have done it quite a bit. Many of our country towns have ridiculously wide roads which provides a huge amount of room for bikes, and the roads are much quieter into the bargain. And as Joe Hockey indiscreetly pointed out, country folks actually don't drive further than city folks. Most country people live in country towns and commuting distances are very short.

JohnnoMcJohnno:

20 Nov 2014 5:58:59pm

You speak for yourself! My country town has ridiculously narrow roads with very few verges and 100 kph limits, a speed which most vehicles, trucks and cars seem happy to travel at. No public transport, unsafe walking/cycling, you're a mug if you don't have a car.

frangipani:

20 Nov 2014 6:57:32pm

My country town is quite hilly, and the drivers are very aggressive (as they are in cities here, too). My sister and brother in law, who have bicycled throughout Europe, Canada, the US and Mexico, and also parts of Asia, will not cycle here except on a bike path, because of the drivers.

astro free press:

20 Nov 2014 4:28:45pm

Thing is Chris, most people in Australia live in cities so, tehcnically that makes them "average Australians". You'll probably also find that trends that start near the port cities carry through to the rest of society over time.

whogoesthere:

20 Nov 2014 4:49:58pm

No they don't. Most people live in the suburbs. I'm all for less cars but unless you live and work in the inner city you have a very hard time without a car. The car won't go away soon, I don't know why people buy huge ones though. It's stupid, they cost alot to run apart from anything else.

Ursus Augustus:

20 Nov 2014 4:48:42pm

The problem there Chris is the ridiculous planning regulations that try to keep alive the aesthetic of the quarter acre block with mum staying at home but on a 300 sq metre alotment in macburbia with the bigest average house size in the world etc. A grotesquely inefficient use of land that generates expensive to build and run housing, energy guzzling, spread out meaning more cars per house. It minimises the appeal of public transport and maximises the congestion on the roads.

Dumb, dumber dumbest.

Want to reduce CO2 emissions? Fix the bloody planning laws and they will naturally drop like a brick as the market takes up the affordable, efficient and innovative options. Same as what happened with cars. Thank god we did not have inane regulations mandating turbocharged 6 to 8 cylinder engines of not less than 4 litres capacity, bodies of not less than 6 metres length with a minimum 4 doors and a boot etc.

Victor:

20 Nov 2014 6:51:40pm

I have used public transport in about 2 dozen cities and have found what we have here to be less than adequate. One of the main reasons for this is probably the need we Australians have for so much space.

Terry:

At least Mr Augustus is honest: he wants to force everyone to live in a tiny apartment as he does. (I assume he does follow his own dictum).

Many of his fellow citizens, who vote for governments, including local councils, disagree with him. They use their votes to elect officials who pass legislation to protect their lifestyles.

That he does not like this is unfortunate but irrelevant. There is no shortage of apartments for him to have. And plenty of houses for those who like a more suburban lifestyle.

His use of emotive and disparaging language may explain why he fails to have many supporters.

PS Only 300 square metres? My block is more than triple that and that is barely enough for a decent garden and comfortable house. I suppose he is talking about the new "compact" blocks that are more suitable for slums than residential living. One thing we have in Australia is space. And coal - we can use it make power for electric cars!

Victor:

Terry, it is about what we as Australians have come to expect. Many Asians think they are in heaven living in a small cement box about 15 stories up while most Australians (like me ) would hate it.

This notwithstanding, the fact that we demand such large amounts of space is a contributor to our logistical problems and is possibly the main reasxon that public transport systems in Asia are generally better than anything we have here.

hairy nosed wombat:

20 Nov 2014 4:57:10pm

I agree that the car is going to remain central for getting around for "average Australians" for some time. Average Australians live in the outer suburbs of our major cities, and these areas still favour the car. You can't drop the kids off at childcare on the train, and not many people can ride 20km each way to work (I had to give up my bike for a few years for these kinds of reasons). But the article was never making that assertion. The article says that less people are driving, and this is simple fact - as demonstrated by some of the statistics in the article. And it is a phenomenon that is occurring across the Western World, even in the US.

People will use the most efficient form of transport, particularly with respect to time and especially as we become busier. And the car is losing in this equation for a growing number of us. I am one of them. I have pretty much exclusively commuted by bike for 2 years now, mostly because it is simply faster. Currently, I do 8km each way, which takes about 15 minutes and this is about 15 minutes faster than you can drive the same distance. I would be crazy (or more correctly, lazy) to drive it. I seem to recall several people now have worked out that average commuting speed in our big cities is now about 15km/h, and this is no different to any other big city anywhere in the world, no matter how much they spend on roads (and obviously we spend billions on them every year). Many of us can average about 30km/h on the bike, especially if we have a dedicated cycle route, which doesn't take up much room, can fit a much higher density of commuters, is much cheaper to construct and can be directly door-to-door. Getting your daily exercise in to the bargain makes it an even more efficient option.

I am obviously a big proponent of cycling commuting. It is cheap, fast, requires a minimum of infrastructure and is the obvious solution to many of our current health woes. The move to the bike throughout the Western world is very strong. Many cities in Europe now have bicycle commuting rates over 30%. It is also growing very fast in the US, with many cities now over the 5% mark, and it has grown 60% just the last 10 years and growing at an exponential rate.

oz4lca:

20 Nov 2014 9:46:20pm

1) Yes personal health benefits from reducing time sitting in cars are positive move to reducing current woes2) It is correct that small corners of Melbourne, now have their travel needs served by nearly 30% of non-motorized modes of travel. However planners need to facilitate infrastructure changes to ensure more of Melbourne becomes safe and convenient for walkers and cyclists

Andrew thomas:

20 Nov 2014 4:35:04pm

Hi aussieinjapan,

Can't speak for the rest of Australia, but my wife and I have started to ask ourselves the same. While our house is not a "McMansion" (only a single story and the eves don't meet with the property boundaries), we still can't move for all the crap we've bought over the years, most of which means nothing. Further, we are now regular used of public transport and a seriously considering downsizing to one car (imagine that!).

din:

a happy little debunker:

'Baby-boomers' did not subscribe to Mad Max, Dukes of Hazard & Starsky/Hutch nor be inspired by them.

'Millennials' naturally have low car ownership as they are not yet old enough to own or buy cars and would be at best, 14 years old.

If you must insist on using marketing terminology (describing segments of the market), please then use them in the correct context in telling your tale.

Your assertion that no generation took to vehicle ownership like baby-boomers is quite badly flawed, in that the cost of cars to baby-bombers was extremely prohibitive, but petrol was relatively cheap, unlike today.

hairy nosed wombat:

virgil:

20 Nov 2014 4:21:26pm

Jeez AHLD, some angry prejudices exposed in your rant there old boy. For a start...Millennials (also known as the Millennial Generation or Generation Y) are the demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates when the generation starts and ends. Researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s.

neil:

20 Nov 2014 6:17:08pm

It's strange how this has become a bit vague, traditionally demographic generations for statistical purposes were fixed 20 year groups 00-19, 20-39, 40-59 etc. I think it was giving the 40-59 group the name baby boomers that started to confuse things, I was born in 61 and was initially not a baby boomer I was gen X because the post war BB went from approx. 1945-1960, then around 2000 BB started to be defined as 45-64 and I suddenly was a BB which technically I am not because I was born in the post 40-59 BB generational period. Now they seem to pick periods randomly.

Geoffrey Pearce:

21 Nov 2014 8:39:03am

I have to say, for statistical purposes, labeling people a particular generation may be useful, but that is all. I find that sort of labeling at best divisive. We need to look inside ourselves and ask, what is best for mankind, the planet and ourselves, and where do we want the future to go - Not where its going, thats for sure.

Greg:

astro free press:

20 Nov 2014 4:31:15pm

In the 1970's petrol was a lot more expensive than it is today relatively speaking, due to the oil shocks. That is the reason why there was a trend towards small japanese cars like Datsun 180B and Mazda. They were cheaper on petrol.

Professor Rosseforp:

20 Nov 2014 4:45:16pm

You are right about Baby Boomers -- a term that seems to have spread to everybody born between 1939 and 1980.For the real Baby Boomers (i.e. Post-war Baby Boomers born 1945-1947), the drop in car sales could reflect their decision to stop driving, or to drive less.

frangipani:

20 Nov 2014 7:04:55pm

Not sure about millennials, but as a boomer, I can assure you it wasn't Mad Max, Dukes of Hazard or Starsky and Hutch that got me behind the wheel. Those programs were all mid to late 1970s, and all aimed squarely at Gen X, not boomers. I'd had a licence for years before any of those shows screened.I got a car because I needed to get to university, and there were no convenient bus routes, and because my dad said I needed to learn to drive for the independence (my mother never did drive, and I think he was definitely going to make sure his daughters could).

Stalga:

20 Nov 2014 10:39:34pm

I'm a 1961 model and have never been happy to be classified as a baby boomer. It was a right of passage in the 70's-80's to be helped to get your first wheels, mostly to facilitate entry into the workplace. A decent second-hand car wasn't unaffordable.

I resent not being branded as generation nuclear, cold war or similar. This doesn't take away from the point being made though.

Madmax yes, the other two, noooo! More like Bathurst, Jack Brabham and Peter Brock.

Lord Erebus:

When was 25 I owned a custom Toyota Landcruiser 4WD, a 1966 Mustang Fastback show car, a 1998 V8 Commodore ute on LPG as a work hack and a 2003 Harley Davidson Fatboy, all on my own.

Now that I'm 32 and married, my wife and I own 1 family car, an Hyundai Getz, and I have a 2012 Harley V-Rod and that's it. Public transport is fine, we hire a ute or a truck if we need it, and walk everywhere else.

Owning and maintaining more than 1 car is too expensive in this day and age.

A pocketful of wry:

20 Nov 2014 4:36:01pm

Admit it Erebus, she told you to get rid of all that bloody junk out of the garage - didn't she?

No need to feel ashamed or un-manly - you're among friends here. There is a support network of older, wiser males who have already been down the same path who you can always turn to if only you'll ask.

And using the term "...in this day and age" your side of fifty just makes you look old, and tired, and drawn. It'll still be here in 20 years time when you really do need to start using it.

Lord Erebus:

20 Nov 2014 5:27:05pm

Actually, no... my ex wrote off the commodore and I never bothered to replace it, I sold the 4WD as I didn't have a use for it anymore, and the Mustang was sold to someone who'd do ore than keep it under a trap in the garage. The Bike was traded for my current one.

The wife is actually pestering me to get a new project car, preferably a 1950's Cadillac if she has her way...

I just don't have a use for all that money-guzzling metal anymore. My horse, my Harley, the family car and my legs get me to all the places I need to be.

phil:

Lord Erebus:

21 Nov 2014 3:06:22pm

I am, but that has nothing to do with it. General servicing, running costs, rego and insurance for 2 cars when 1 is more than enough are wasteful and pointless. All those [expletive delete] driving their 7 seat 4WDs through the CDB, who have no kids and no intention of having kids, should get a more suitable car.

Don't use the 'own a boat or caravan' excuse. A sedan will do the same job, and your pristine tyres, undercarriage and paint show me you don't take the $100,000 tank off-road anyways, so argument lost.

Our neighbors are a family of 4, adults in their mid 30s, kids both under 6. They own a Hilux 4WD dual cab ute, which lives in the carport almost 24/7 and only seems to be moved to wash one of the other cars, a Camry hybrid that is the family car, a Nissan Patrol 4WD that I have never seen leave the garage, and a brand new 2014 Holden SSV Commodore, which is used once a week, usually on a Sunday for a quick lap around the block, then parked again. 4 cars, 2 licensed drivers... tell me now what kind of society we live in?

Reader:

20 Nov 2014 4:22:11pm

Ugh, I know. I don't actually live in Newcastle, but I heard of this situation from my brother who's a trainspotter, and was appalled. I grew up in areas of Sydney with similarly regressive public transport policy and it's terrible. It just should not be possible to build suburbs too far from public transport, let alone remove existing public transport infrastructure!

BC:

21 Nov 2014 8:51:48am

Too bloody right. It's a ridiculous situation. A new Uni campus and court house being built opposite Civic station, and they're cutting the line. They should be running a small branch line up into the main campus and putting more trains on to move students about. Maitland and surrounds are being built up incredibly fast. Those trains into the city are always full. But we're going to unload them all at Wickham and put them on buses. Doesn't work very well. Look at Bondi Juction. I know. I drove buses there, and I drive them here in Newcastle.

Diogenes:

Absolutely...Especially if the Newcastle Freight Rail bypass (roughly Fassifern to Hexham using old coal lines) is adopted - convert the "heavy rail" to "lighter" rail (like the BART or Muni in SFO)

Huge developments going in at Minmi - reopen the old J&A Brown that used to run to Minmi across the swamp(sorry wetland) to Hexham Huge housing & industrial developments along the old SMR (average 2 coal trains a day) that used to run into Cessnock - so reopen the SMR to passenger traffic to MaitlandMost of the old line from Waratah to Charlestown is a reserve - relay & reopen.Reopen the Toronto line from Fassifern.I believe the old West Wallsend railway is still mostly reserve (huge developments along the old formation) - reopen to Cockle CreekThere are numerous older & shorter colliery lines that could be reopened as light rail ditto the extensive network or tram lines (Wallend amongst others)

That would bring plenty of commuters into the heart of Newcastle

My favourite - reopen the old Belmont Line (the Fernleigh Track) & carry out the extension past Murrays Beach, Catherine Hill Bay, and the triple lakes (northern Central Coast) to Wyong that was proposed in the 60's.

A pocketful of wry:

I do think Mike Clay is somewhat oversimplifying the car experience for those of us who got their licences circa the 70s.

Having a car allowed you to do a number of things;

1) It let you get away from your olds whenever you could.

Today's youngsters spend so much time under the feet of their olds; it's the olds who need the cars to get away from them.

2) It let you go to places and see things back in the time when there weren't caches of images on Google.

Nowadays, if you've seen it on line apparently you've been there and done that.

3) Apart from your car radio, it gave you quiet time if you wanted it.

"Quiet time" these days is when you've inadvertently dropped your mobile phone down the pan. Forcing such a thing on youngsters would be tantamount to genocide.

4) You got to have sex in cars.

In modern parlance therefore, talking about cars is "Too much information". I suspect even seeing one is "gross". lol.

5) More a guy thing, but having a car gave you the means to wipe yourself out if and when your own stupidity and the stars aligned.

These days there are a range of easily-obtained products available to help wipe yourself out, and all of them are fairly benign on the question of greenhouse gases.

6) Cars let you be with friends.

These days, a well-charged lithium-ion battery does the same - without need for all this yucky physical closeness, enjoyment of being with other humans, and problems about what to do with your thumbs in a communal setting type-of thing.

7) If any of your mates didn't like your car you (a) challenged them to a drag, (b) laughed louder at theirs, or (c) ran your key down their bodywork when no-one was looking.

These days, getting a "thumbs down" "dislike" is pretty-much a death sentence. Our young ones need to be kept away from this sort of confidence-sapping filth at all costs. Someone "disliking" the bus you're on hardly creates the same level of grief and angst.

reluctant driver:

20 Nov 2014 4:13:09pm

So how are our politicians dealing with this shift away from cars? How can we harness this movement to create pleasant cities where cycling or walking across the street is not an adrenaline sport?"... improved public transport, has made going without a car easier".I guess that the author does not live in Adelaide.

Aven:

20 Nov 2014 4:16:26pm

It is a good point - what does a road of the 21st Century look like? I.e. I wonder if it will have a consistent bike lane. . . When I lived in Canberra I had absolutely no need for a car - combination of cycling, the great buses where you can transport your bike and the fact I could walk to the local shop, all made the car absolutely unnecessary. Now I live in Queanbeyan and walking to the shop is 40mins down the highway on the badly maintained bicycle lane. So I still ride 3 times per week (averaging 120kms and saving on gym membership in the process) but find that the car is necessary as the interstate bus just doesn't cut it.

Mark:

20 Nov 2014 4:21:50pm

There is certainly a structural decline in car ownership but I'm not sure you've hit the nail on the head as to the reasons.

Firstly, the ageing population will result in lower demand for cars. As a baby boomer couple retires, there is much less need for the second family car. You will see a lot of ageing families going from two cars to one.

Secondly, I don't agree that "millennials" are demonstrating a great desire to shun car ownership and embrace public transport. The lack of car ownership among young people is a result of more general societal changes and cost.

Millennials are dependent on their parents for longer than any past generation. Long gone are the days when young people left home and were financially independent from the age of 18. Many millennials live in the family home up until their late 20's and are financially dependent on their parents well into their 20's. Rather than rushing off to buy their own car once they turned 18 like past generations, millennials will borrow Dad or Mum's car or get a ride from them wherever they need to go.

Also, millennials are simply responding to the cost of car ownership. While new cars are cheaper than ever, the modern approach to building cars (cheaper but less durable) and Government regulation has made cheap but reliable second hand cars harder to find than ever. The cost of registration and fuel has never been more expensive, and the cost of insurance for young people is astronomical. Millennials aged under 25, still living with and largely financially dependent on Mum and Dad who spend what money they do save on an overseas holiday simply can't afford to own a car.

joeblogs:

Reader:

20 Nov 2014 4:27:27pm

As a 20-year-old, I agree with this article. If I ever have enough money to buy an apartment, I'll make sure it's near a train station to avoid adding the $$$$ of running a car! What's with the suburban dream anyway? It's a trap! Unless you actually need land for something (e.g. a farm), you'll just spend tons of money buying the property, maintaining the property and transporting yourself to/from work to earn the money to buy and maintain the property!

leafygreens:

20 Nov 2014 5:00:06pm

The suburbs were space to bring up a family, they had their own local amenities and kids would ride bikes to school (on their own), Mum would walk to the shops and Dad would get on a train that had a stop on the major industrial estates that ringed them. Or he would take a bike on the train.

Garden suburbs of the 20s were open, healthy places.Inner city living was associated with slums and poverty.

Now its all been gentrified its fashionable to laugh at the suburbs.

Now those old blocks are all cut up for intensive urbanisation, and people crave a treechange or a seachange later in life to get some breathing space.

Its understandable you see no value in a suburban block... its lost its original purpose. New suburbs are just cookie cutter cattle pens without grass or trees, build with touching gutters and fortress walls, to suit our virtual and sedentary lives. New developments don't get planned around public transport, but have a freeway chopped into it later on. Local amenities can't start up in the face of mega shopping malls in the next suburb along with superschools and faraway hospitals..

A pocketful of wry:

20 Nov 2014 5:39:07pm

A very good and highly accurate historical summation leafy - and extremely useful for any younger person wanting to put what they see around them today in some sort of context.

My mum grew up in Port Melbourne, and my dad in Carlton (as well as time in country Victoria around the Seymour area), and I can confirm it was goal for anyone with aspirations to get out of the inner city cess-pit if they could. From what I know of those areas today, if any of the inhabitants of yesteryear magically re-appeared via time machine they'd probably be detained as vagrants by some private security force - and that'd just be the handful of well-to-do ones.

At that time the "suburbs" I grew up in were 5 miles (north) from the GPO - I guess they qualify today as inner-city (it's been decades since I've been back, and have no desire to do so anyway). My dad bought a brand new 1962 Holden from Southern Motors (he had a "thing" about Kevin Dennis - better left unsaid perhaps), and when he died (in the 90s) it was one of the things that needed to be gotten rid of. On the question of where Australia's rolling obsession with multiple-car garages stocked with shiny things came from, it wasn't a trend well-established when I was young.

You are quite correct also to differentiate between suburbs of the 50s and 60s with the junk being turned out today - this stuff we see springing up is a bastardised mess.

I don't expect youngsters living in today's new paradigm to have any sort of affinity or conception of those times, but it would help them to understand things a bit better if they knew there was a logical reason why things went the way they did back then.

Personally I'm pleased for them that they've reclaimed the cities - although I can also see oodles of things associated with that form of living which don't sit well with my upbringing. I wish them good luck.

Reader:

Thanks for the insights leafygreens and A pocketful of wry! :) I think my view of suburbs has been a bit coloured by growing up where you had to drive to get to anything other than a supermarket.

I'm not even talking necessarily about apartments/terraces in the inner city - I can't see many people my age affording that in the near future - but just units near a decent train hub vs houses several kilometres out.

Stalga:

20 Nov 2014 11:21:00pm

Hi Reader, keep one eye on your future security. Satisfactory land tenure is very important for contentment once you hit middle age. Nobody hated living in the suburbs back then. These anecdotes are accurate. Best wishes!

MartyvH:

OUB :

20 Nov 2014 7:33:49pm

Unfortunately proximity to good public transport adds to the cost of a property. Better to try for something a comfortable walking distance from the trains perhaps.

Try to avoid getting fixated on owning your own home. It is more an Australian thing than a preoccupation of other nationalities. In most countries renting is more the norm I gather. I don't deny there is an attraction in owning your own home if you can afford it. You will need to make saving a priority, something that requires more responsibility than it is fair to ask from most 20 year olds - there is a life to be lived, experiences to be had. Don't neglect that side of your life. Probably easier to save for a home when you are in a relationship with a likeminded partner. No need to fret about it now anyway.

1001nights:

20 Nov 2014 4:34:29pm

I love it when a Journo puts his own thoughts on paper. It gives me a chance to have a go. Sorry Mike but from your photo, I suspect you might be a millennial or Gen Y as I have now found out. I suspect you might also reside in the inner burbs wherever where I agree, public transport is the king. However, I think it will be quite some time before the love affair with the automobile is replaced. Would have been nice if you had cited your info so we could understand the basis of your assertions, so till then, I say - rubbish!

Scotty A:

20 Nov 2014 4:39:51pm

I welcome any reduction in car ownership but anecdotally I just dont see it and I live ~8ks from Perth and ride my bicycle or train it to work everyday. We have dropped to 1 car for a 4 person household (young family) and the saving is noticeable.

"This vehicle is choc-full of technology and will really appeal to a younger market who are very in touch with connectivity," says Ms Fletcher.

In a bicycle rider i'd hope all this 'connectivity' doesnt distract from the ultimate purpose of the car ie. paying attention while driving NOT being on Facebook!

Professor Rosseforp:

20 Nov 2014 4:42:20pm

Perhaps it's time to look at the definition of "Baby Boomer", and compare it with people buying cars in the 1950s and people being influenced by movies and television shows made in the late 1970s and 1980s. This might reveal a flaw in the analysis presented here.However, putting that aside, I am a big user of public transport and always have been. I haven't noticed great improvements in NSW. We have a dud ticketing system called Opal in Sydney and environs, we have lost services, we have lost off-peak fares, and many service are slower than when Baby Boomers were babies.We have newer trains that are less comfortable than the oldies -- and aren't we going to be in for a lot of fun at Central Station when all lines are "unlinked", so that everybody has to change trains/modes of transport more regularly?

buckettea:

21 Nov 2014 12:40:57pm

it's already decimated, no real growth in terms of uptake, no price rise to keep up with CPI and now they've dropped their prices just to prevent churn. their next product will be a dud, offering little more than the current combined with the already in-house gadgets like smartphones and tablets.

there's a reason he's buying into commercial networks...

@spadosdad - i work from home already without the NBN, it's not like i need to watch HD content to do my job, actually i use 3g without any real hindrance to productivity. the only thing slowing down the trend is that no one out on the roads means less money going to oil companies, electricity companies powering ivory office towers, car manufacturers, and everything else dictated as necessary when travelling away from home for work purposes (lunch outlets, incidental retail therapy, office-suitable attire, etc.) and a hangover by the babyboomers that bums on seats means productivity.

leafygreens:

20 Nov 2014 4:44:05pm

in the 70s the car was also the way to have a good family holiday... with a caravan or camping. Going out for a long drive fro a BBQ or picnic on the weekend was family time.

Now you do a cheap airline & accomodation deal to a theme park for a week and the kids spend the rest of the hols on their gaming consoles or their phones.. all together doing different things and a BBQ means an at home eating extravaganza

So the Boomers are retiring off with the grey nomad ethos and travelling with car and 'van... or tradies have the boat and the 'shack' that is flasher than nannas' whole house..

The heyday of the car and the suburban sprawl of the 60s and 70s is as long ago to now as the change from horse was then..

my alter ego:

20 Nov 2014 4:44:14pm

I'd say there's a spectrum of reasons, speaking as the subject and unshackling my ego for a moment. I'd also add that segmenting as just an age group still gives you a pretty diverse group of people that can't all be summarised by me or just the points in the article.

I'd say for some, the cost pressure of saving for a house and a car these days is pretty high, especially if you're single. I earn above average and I don't think I spend extravagantly, I'm surprised how a single person or a young family has the mortgage, a car loan and still dresses expensively, furnishes lavishly, goes out to eat often and has overseas trips.

I decided I would be better off by taking out a modest mortgage to buy a place in the city (not a red hot property market yet) where I would be less than a 15 minute walk from everywhere I needed to be week to week. Then to me a car was something I wasn't going to need much except for social or exceptional reasons. Yes the surrounding area is a bit more expensive to live but a car was going to cost money to use, cost money to keep and depreciate in value with not much foreseeable utility. Where a destination is too far or incovenient for public transport and/or a trolley, then I pay, beg or bribe to either get there or have something brought from there.

Naturally this doesn't suit everyone's situation but I think there are others with a similar philosophy.

I don't hate cars at all. One day I want something amazing which is also why I have no interest in buying what I could presently afford. This leads me to perhaps a cynical and far-fetched assumption of the shallowness of my peers. A car is less and less a luxury item unless it's largely unaffordable. It's so commoditised that it's become passe to show off because those around you can probably own one too. You can't wear it at the cafe for people to notice, you get maybe a 30 second window in a carpark for people to see your taste and it's only with people that presumably have a car too. So better to be identified (judged) by lots of little things in real life and online that aren't such a big chunk of money as a car. Fashion, gadgets, dining, trips etc.

ccbd dweller:

20 Nov 2014 4:47:28pm

I did my personal economics a few years ago and found a car wasn't worth the money.

Benefits* No rego costs* No deprecation of an "asset"* No insurance* Never having to worry about under/over 0.05 BAC* No breakdowns, costly repairs* No maintenance/servicing* Reclaim 10+ hours a week from my commute* My car park generates money* http://www.yarratrams.com.au/media-centre/news/articles/2014/free-cbd-tram-zone-from-1-january-2015/

Losses* Have to walk 200m to the nearest car share* Car share may not be available, have to walk 100m more to next one* Have to get all bulky items delivered

Socially;

For years I've seen cars as an economic liability and not an asset. With an increasing population, increasing density and decreasing oil reserve I don't see how the current model of 50% car ownership can be sustainable. Since the manufacturing plants are closing and almost all our petrol is imported (http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/fuel-security/5278572) it makes sense to shift away from our dependency. Environmentally it helps as well since it reduces the amount of Co2e emitted, transportation makes up 14% of our nations emissions and that's not including the cost of having the damn thing shipped here in the first place.

David:

20 Nov 2014 7:00:39pm

I did the same calculations and came to the same conclusion. Owning a car used to mean freedom but now there are so many parties financially dependant on car use and the revenue they generate that its just a rolling tax machine. If its not the dealer or the service department its the insurance company, the fuel company, the auto club, the car park or the state police standing by the side of the road with a camera. I need a car at my rural property but wouldn't own one at all if I moved back to the city.

frangipani:

20 Nov 2014 7:13:12pm

You both live in CBDs. I live in small town Australia. I'd have to walk 3 km to the bus, which goes twice a day to the next town, where the dentists and doctors are. Everyone around here needs a car, because public transport isn't there. And no, there are no trains. At all. And the nearest airport is 80 km.

Just Sayin':

20 Nov 2014 4:53:20pm

Even the roadside assistance associations are feeling the change as the younger people buy more reliable cars & don't require their $100+p.a. charges. It has gotten to such an extent that the S.A. RAA has declared that they are now doing roadside assistance for their 40% of members who are older than 60yo & require gophers/mobility scooters to get around on.

Then there is the issue of whether a young person actually requires a brand new car that rapidly depreciates to half its value in 5 years whilst they pay off that 5 year loan, that's if they can afford to buy it in the first place on their part-time casual wages (the casualisation of the workforce is having many ramifications apart from home ownership, cars are the second biggest purchace after a home). As there are many newish secondhand vehicles in the marketplace that are far more reliable & fuel efficient than the new cars of 20-40 years ago there is no need to buy new like there was in times gone by.

MartyvH:

20 Nov 2014 4:59:22pm

I live on Queensland's Sunshine Coast, which has about the same population as Wollongong but is VERY spread out. Added to the fact that we have a good bus network, but the great majority of stops have no shelter of any kind. In Queensland, with Queensland's weather and this state being the skin cancer centre of the world. You would think there would be duty of care but they've dropped the ball. A car is essential here.

ram:

20 Nov 2014 5:24:39pm

First of all, automobile prices in Australia are absurd, three to five times higher than in the USA and many other countries. Second, the iconic cars of the 1960's were simple. Simple to build, simple to repair, and usually good on fuel as they typically had much less weight. Today, cast miniature models of those cars cost more than the originals did -- in dollar terms, but even accounting for inflation the simple vehicles of the 60's cost much less. Fuel was cheap in the 60's since Saudi Arabia's big fields were just reaching full production and America's petroleum fields were still seriously producing. Now the Americans are "out of gas" and the Saudi fields are at the end of their life. There are no giant oil fields under development, or for that matter remaining. The age of petroleum is coming to an end. I'm glad the younger generations have figured it out.

Dove:

20 Nov 2014 5:42:23pm

Let me assure you all that in trendy, down-town Latte Land, there's hardly been an inch of new rail laid recently. Rolling stock is aged. If you were to look at the number of herrings squashed in on a commuter carriage you'd have to conclude that the public transport to people ratio peaked about thirty years ago. Public transport isn't growing in attraction. Congestion, taxation and pollution are simply making cars less attractive. All my bourgeois lefity peers sip their chardonney from the back of llamas. It's catching on

Dove:

PW:

Caffettierra Moka:

21 Nov 2014 9:48:34am

'not an inch of new rail'

Well come on down to Epping would you? Fairly new Epping to Chatswood line already being upgraded and the Third Rail to Thornleigh going ahead 24/7. Meanwhile the giant boring machines are already drilling underground out to Cherrybrook, then Western Sydney. I live next to the line, so I can see it up close and personal.

Dove:

GrumpiSkeptic:

20 Nov 2014 5:42:29pm

A car to me is more of a necessity than a status symbol. Yes, I do drive a large old diesel 4X4. However, it is actually quite economical in comparison to even smaller sedans. It is economical due to my driving habits, as well as the fact that it is diesel, albeit an old diesel.

Living in the rural regions meant I don't really have the option of jumping on a bus or train. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why Australia does not have a comprehensive public transport system...It is to do with the tyranny of distance.

To reduce my fuel bills as well as lessening the greenhouse emissions, I plan my trips to town carefully so that I don't make unnecessary driving.

Can I give up my car? No way. That is because I also needed the wagon to carry my windsurfing gear to the beach. I doubt a taxi would be a viable option either.

Young people don't have as many cars? Well, perhaps they probably spend quite considerable sums in their electronic gadgets? Come to think of it, new cars are not that much different to a SmartPhone, iPad, or iPhone. Adverts for new cars don't tell you how reliable the engine is. Or the smoothness of the transmission set up. Instead, they tell you how "clever" the car is. It will reverse for you into a tight spot. It will recognize your voice. It will have Blue-Tooth. It will have "inter-connectivity". Remember the Volkswagen Beetle "Herbie" that drives itself? New cars are like that except they are much more streamline, and the colour schemes are much louder!

Isn't it interesting that back some ten-twenty years ago, cars adverts emphasized the reliability, power, and above all, safety. Now it is about "BLING". I guess it is better to be seen on FaceBook next to a "bling" thing than a dirty, smelly old diesel wagon like mine?

scimus:

20 Nov 2014 6:37:32pm

The windsurfing example is an excellent one, that can be generalised. I am as appalled as the next person by the waste of time and resources from the daily gridlock of single occupancy vehicles in the big cities of Australia. There has to be a better way. However, one thing our affluent Australian lifestyle has given us is the mobility to lead lives much less circumscribed by work, home and immediate neighbourhood than for much of the world's population. I struggle to imagine being able to do the following things in this country without car ownership: Go fishing in the tinny, go sailing, be a performing musician or DJ, play a sport that involves competing at different locations, be active in community service, shift building/gardening stuff, go camping, go to your cousin's BBQ 10 suburbs across town at right angles to the road into the city etc etc. Car ownership really helps to get out of the house doing "real stuff" with real people, that is not employment related, and doesn't just involve sitting around in a cafe two blocks from your flat (which I enjoy as much as anyone). Sure there are transport work-arounds, but they are often not great. It would be very sad to see the "real stuff", that is so much a part of ther richness of Australian life, start to dwindle away.

Dave C:

20 Nov 2014 6:23:27pm

So what happens when all these Millennials decide to partner up marry/de facto and have small children.

As a father of a 4 yr old and 1 yr old to go anywhere with a pram and bag full of goodies (nappies bottle wipes change of clothes) I (or my wife) could not do it without a car. Then when they get older taking the kids to dancing/swimming/soccer/netball whatever it could be very interesting not having a car.

This article shows how inner city centric (and non child centric) the author and posters are. It all seriously depends on where you work and your lifestyle. For example if you lived in say Sutherland and worked in Menai or Bankstown (10-15 drive non peak hour) could you take two kids to day care/school and then go on the bus (and do the return trip in the afternoon) without a car? I dont think so.

Scotty A:

20 Nov 2014 6:48:51pm

Dave, I have 2 kids under 2. We have 1 car. A v8 Sportswagon. Both my Mrs and me work. I live about 8kms from the centre of Perth. I would drive maybe once a week (to take my 2 year old to swimming in fact, or grab a trailer load of something for the backyard.)

So there is an alternative anecdote for you. I am not sure what you call inner city but to me in the 5-15km range from town there is generally some good transport options if you have chosen your house well.

Dave C:

20 Nov 2014 8:02:43pm

Thats my actual point, you have kids and own 1 car. The author is saying that young people are shying away from owning a car AT ALL. I am saying wait till they have a family and each family needs at least 1 car for the said kids then we will see if the trend for that generation towards no owning a car continues.

As for the inner city bit like I said it all depends on circumstances and essentially where you work (and where your partner/spouse works) in relation to where you can afford to live/are able to live safely especially with young children and also in relation to child care etc etc. These decisions are never easy and vary from family to family. But the closer you are to the city the easier it is for a family to have 1 car and not 2.

Ange:

21 Nov 2014 8:47:06am

I've done all this. Did supermarket shops with pram, baby and toddler in tow. Walked there and home with the pram tray loaded up with purchases. Sometimes I had goods delivered. Walked to playgroup, kinder and school. Walked to dancing lessons. Walked or rode bikes to sporting activities. Rode bikes to swimming lessons. Took the bus with stroller and baby to childcare and walked to work. Walk to the child health centre and library. Two playgrounds in walking distance and two more within riding distance. Train and walk to the GP, bus and walk to the dentist. Walk to the orthodontist. If you live in the city or inner to middle suburbs it should be possible to do most things by walking and many things with public transport. Just choose the activity close to you - for instance there are playgroups everywhere - we had at least 3 within walking distance ( less than 1 km) - you don't need to travel very far for most amenities and activities. The dance studio was at the end of our street. Kinder around the corner. Primary school about 1k away. You would be surprised at the number of people who automatically get in the car to drive less than 500 m. I was. All this is not to say we don't have a car - we do, and we use it for the longer trips where it is obviously required. I am just trying to point out that many local activities can be undertaken by public transport or on your own feet, even with kids.

Ben Nallay:

20 Nov 2014 7:15:42pm

We need to move towards lightweight electric/pedalpowered vehicles like bikes or gophers or electric mini mokes with 27x1.125" 110psi tyres, for getting just ourselves around from place to place. One advantage is that crashes with light objects are more likely to break a few bones than squash old ladies at crosswalks like frogs that happens when they get roadkilled.

Car exhaust pollution is the most crass and blatant finger at climate change and lung cancer besides industrial-scale arson. We don't need them anymore. We already have the technology. We just don't have the egos for it, or the heart.

Filz:

20 Nov 2014 7:36:04pm

"Improved public transport means cars aren't the convenience they once were."

Sorry, but this opening comment is utter bollocks for two reasons: (1) Public transport where I live (Adelaide) hasn't improved. It has partially dragged itself into the 20th century (electric trains) and this is only because we now have sufficient power generation to run them. We didn't have sufficient power previously. Further, our tramline from Glenelg into Adelaide has been extended through the city down to Hindmarsh, duplicating a rail network. There is talk of further duplication by running the tramline down to Port Adelaide. Why?

(2) Cars represent convenience. When it's pouring with rain, we don't have to walk to a bus stop, stand under inadequate "shelter", nor can we buy a ticker from a dispensing machine e using a credit card. Suburban train stations don't have any facilities like toilets, ticketing, cafes and nobody staffs them, making them patently unsafe places to be if you are of a vulnerable disposition. You can go where you like, when you like in a car. Public transport denies us that right.

This of course does not account for people who need a car for their work, sales representatives, delivery people, couriers, process servers, or anyone who needs to get somewhere else quickly and comfortably. Essential services also need their vehicles.

The "car", in whatever form, will never be replaced. Long live that freedom!

Leftover:

20 Nov 2014 8:22:45pm

Public Transport would be ok if it went where you needed it. In a large city it works but out bush there is not a lot of public transportation so need a vehicle that is reliable preferably a manual and 4X4 fitted with a Roo Bar to try and save the radiator/engine.

ArthurJ:

20 Nov 2014 8:31:25pm

We live in Brisbane. We are unfamiliar with public transport in our suburb. It is one of those suburbs that is acreage and has many greenhouse gas eating trees for which we receive no financial reward. Those in the inner city with no greenery receive all the great roads and all the public transport. Our state member has done nothing to insist that the planned rods from the designs of 1960's have not been built but billions have been spent elsewhere. Our local councillor likes the insulated riches of suburbs closer to the heart of the town and our federal member is inert. Such is the life of an LNP electorate set up.Today's wonderful inner city apartments are tomorrow's slums.

Valley Dweller:

20 Nov 2014 9:25:18pm

My observations indicate that while these millennials don 't like buying cars or driving they are only too happy to expect others, especially their parents, to have cars and drive them around, suppose that's a lot cheaper.

Geoff P:

20 Nov 2014 11:17:12pm

For years the car producers have striven to make a car which cannot be serviced by any other than the dealer. Spare parts are reportedly inflated by upto 1000% and resale values are low. Why buy such a liability, its cheaper to hire.

chrisso:

20 Nov 2014 11:26:44pm

Public transport schmublic transport. It costs me $9 by bus to get from my place to the nearest mall and back. I can park my car there for free and petrol costs for the same journey (11.5km return) in my 1992 Nissan Pulsar are $1.70 using high octane fuel. In this respect public transport is a luxury for those with some lazy money lying around.

Let's face it, public transport is just not as convenient as a car. You lose time and money. If public transport was free, that is, funded through taxes indirectly, people would take to it like the proverbial duck to water. It's then a straight trade off. You lose time but save money. Certainly worth considering.

chrisso:

Lee eel:

21 Nov 2014 12:37:43pm

I agree that everyone benefits from the existence of roads. But that has led to people over using road resources and letting everyone pick up the bill. The user pays motorist largely does not exist in this country.

Public transport sometimes appears expensive because people do not pay anywhere near the cost of a comparable trip by car.

Dave of Belconnen:

21 Nov 2014 4:07:48am

I'm posting this becuase the article is so appallingly researched, its plain wrong. The truth is that at this point in history, car registration per head of population is at an all time high, also many people drive second hand cars. Australians also are showing a trend to purchase cheaper cars which dont last as long (say7-9 years as opposed to 20) and the justification for this is the improved saftey and comfort that comes from driving a modern vehicle. Environmentally however, well ah cough hmmn. But to suggest we buy less cars and there are less on the road is absolute rubbish, we buy more now than ever, and its increasing. Have a look at the ELV (End Life Vehicle) data in any state. (if you can get it... which of course you will find difficult without a few years of work... which I have done). This article is factually innaccurate and also quite misleading.

Nalini Haynes:

21 Nov 2014 5:57:45am

Paris recently made city public transport free to help reduce pollution.

In contrast, Melbourne spends a shitload on security officers who harass passengers, treating us like second-class citizens. On 14 February 2014, a Melbourne Metro Security guard threatened to assault me because I asked to put my belongings on a nearby table so I could get my concession ID out of my heavy backpack. He told me to put my belongings ON THE RUBBISH BIN. He refused to allow me to move towards the tables, threatening to chest bump me and placing his right hand almost on my left breast. I asked for ID. Eventually he gave me a false ID number on a piece of paper. When I complained, Metro Security provided video footage of a different woman going through a different set of barriers at a different time. Then they claimed there was no camera for the barriers I went through. When they finally provided footage of the incident, IT WAS CUT. Passersby leapt metres in one frame. In other portions, passersby were blocked out so you couldn't see where the video was cut. I received no satisfaction, no apology and no assurances this would not happen again.

So. To recap. Paris makes public transport free. Metro Security treats passengers like criminals until proven innocent AND they place customers in unsafe situations while demanding customers prove themselves innocent. When complaints are made, they're covered up; serious misconduct is concealed, swept under the rug. I was even told to catch trams instead of trains if I felt unsafe. I live near a train station and maybe 20 km past the last tram stop. Anyone would think Public Transport Victoria was working to help the car companies sell their cars.

Our orange sunsets pollution, people. Wake up and smell the petrol fumes and the coal-fired power station that, although so very far away, still coats my bathroom in coal-dust when I leave the window open.

pete from the deep south:

whatif:

21 Nov 2014 7:52:06am

Cars ,trucks and whatever will not fade out in the bush, unlike our city counterparts, we do not have the bus, trams or rail transport at our fingertips, we drive 100 kilometres a day or more to go to work or just to get to a hospital, But on the same note, after driving in the city, I would definitely leave my car at home.

Lobstermash:

21 Nov 2014 8:40:12am

Cars are so last century... Within a decade or two owning a car will be like smoking is now - a costly, pointless and unhealthy burden for the plebs who don't know better or the snobs that can't adapt. Bring on the era of pedal and electric powered bikes...

NeilA:

21 Nov 2014 9:06:57am

Tony Abbott, with his thinking anchored in the past, has simply promised to build the roads of the 20th century in the 21st century. The roads we will need in the 21st century are increasingly looking like bicycle lanes. They'll be a heck of a lot cheaper and less environmentally destructive.

capewell:

21 Nov 2014 9:31:47am

peak car while the suburbs spread over the horizon? yeah right

maybe our lowering standard of living and ageing demographics and acceptance of crowded inner city living just means there will be a different buying patterns. Using inner city trendoidal bicycling and car sharing examples to explain a national trend isnt useful.

Ben Nallay:

21 Nov 2014 10:23:00am

"peak car while the suburbs spread over the horizon? "

Thanks. You reminded me of what I was just thinking last night after closing time here. That is, local transport roads were made for single lane two-way roads of around 1000mm max width, and if there were no huge carparks (including multistorey on principle) all over every shopping centre, sports ground, office block, factory, school hospital court house and public library, (as well as all the wide open spaces along the sides of the roads and great bicycle lanes for stopping with your hazard lights on when you want to make a phone call for half an hour), only Fibonacci could tell you how many more trees we could have planted through the cities with around 80% of the suburbs no longer needed for motor vehicle circuits and car parks.

It could, with a little efficacious town planning, reduce bicycle travel times because everywhere you go could be a lot closer to where you stay.

I've owned over 80 of them, built motors, Bought Street Machine for decades, but like my Springsteen LPs, those memories are now collectors' items. The car's days are over. One day kids will laugh how many tonnes of metal we used to use to transport our few kilos of meat around in before it got sent off to the hospital for medical experiments.

OUB :

21 Nov 2014 9:51:42am

Mike's use of 2007 as a benchmark is telling. That's when a lot of music stopped. People became risk averse and largely stopped borrowing against the equity in their home to buy cars, boats and other distractions. Probably education is a factor as far as your millennials go. People I work with in their mid-20s refuse to have credit cards, I presume because they have had it drilled into them that the interest rates can be punishing. If they won't apply for credit cards it is hard to see them applying to a finance company for a loan to buy a car. And if they don't have a credit history I imagine it would be that much harder. If friends don't have cars there would be no peer pressure to take to the roads. Older siblings may set a trend.

I (boomer) don't have a car myself, don't see the need for one and don't get any pleasure from running around after the damn things. If there was a need I'd buy one, reluctantly. Probably few millennials have families to cart around the countryside at this stage. Could be a minor rebound in sales in the next 5 to 10??? But it is hard to see cars being traded in as regularly as formerly when consumers are feeling insecure about the economy.

Tamaresque:

21 Nov 2014 11:26:07am

This only applies to cities with well-developed public transport. Move away from that and you'll find that we're all reliant on our cars. I couldn't live comfortably without one seeing that the only public transport around here is the local bus company.Car ownership is not a trend that will be bucked by anyone of any age who lives in Tasmania or rural and remote mainland Australia.However, I'm looking forward to the day when they are MUCH more fuel efficient AND marketed at a much more affordable price.

Ex Digger:

21 Nov 2014 1:58:46pm

I live in a country town (45 Km's from Albury Wodonga) where I can get most things I need but you do need a car and that is becoming more expensive especially on a fixed income. The standing costs of motoring are just getting higher, let alone the price of fuel which fluctuates quite dramatically. If you have public transport cherish it and please use it. Otherwise If you don't use it , you'll lose it.

Ben Nallay:

21 Nov 2014 2:41:51pm

"you do need a car "

We managed without them for most of our history, you might recall. There are many excuses for bad forward planning in regional stopovers, and some perhaps fair. Even dinosaurs survived without internal combustion engines. We can't let them beat us at our own game.

buckettea:

21 Nov 2014 3:57:18pm

I can see the stampede at the trough as mum pulls up on her stallion to drop off her spawn.

Unfortunately, society doesn't cater for like it were. I'd love a horse and cart, but do you think the other road users would tolerate me for long? do you think the local council wouldn't put umptine restrictions on me for keeping such an animal in my backyard? would i be allowed to house the minions required to look after it in my make-shift stable while I went off to work to bring home the bacon?

I live in the country, 25km from the nearest shop - 50km from the nearest bus that takes me to a rail line. some of us don't have the options of non-ownership.

Swinging voter:

21 Nov 2014 4:04:39pm

According to ABS statistics, the number of passenger vehicles registered in Aust increased 2.3% last year and average annual increase over last 5 years has been 2.1%. Also according to ABS statistics, population growth is at 1.7%.

In short, the fundamental premise of this article appears to be wrong. Car ownership has been increasing, not decreasing.

Turkey's currency is doing so badly that the country's president this week urged his citizens to go to the bank and exchange any "dollars or gold under their pillows" for liras. So what's behind the crisis and whom does it affect?